3 ms·

For people that complain a party won without the popular vote under the current rules, if you changed the rules for what defines winning, then that party would

For people that complain a party won without the popular vote under the current rules, if you changed the rules for what defines winning, then that party would have campaigned in a completely different way E.g. under the old rules, maybe the winning party purposely didn't campaign in a state they knew they couldn't win (a logical use of campaign funds), dragging down their countrywide vote. If the countrywide vote was important though, they wouldn't have campaigned like this. You could argue that the current rules for winning don't accurately match the general will of the people but it's illogical to me to argue that the party that won under the current rules would have or should have lost if the rules changed. Making it easier for people to vote and getting more people to vote seems like a no-brainier improvement though.

LanceH 6y ago
It amazes me the sheer number of people that just don't get this. I personally believe that this influence Republicans to move a bit more center. but who knows? A good example of what could happen to close the national voting gap: Republicans would actually campaign in California and a few of the big blue states. Right now, someone voting for a republican in California has very little incentive to show up to vote. Republicans start campaigning there and the voters now have a reason to show up. Maybe not enough to close the gap completely, but it could close it a lot with no policy changes, just campaigning and a reason for people to show. The same could happen the other way, but the big population blue states are more abandoned by Republicans than the big red states are by dems (it seems). Anyhow, if you change the rules, the players are going to change their game.